GodDAMMIT! I am sick and tired of people biatching about "drones" (they're UAVs, not drones--drones are what you use for target practice). We go to all the trouble and expense to develop these things to schwack just the right people, and minimize collateral damage, and you STILL aren't happy about it. Hey, you know what's a lot farking cheaper than drones? Saturation bombing. Great big dumb bombs that make the huge booms are a hell of a lot cheaper than the little bitty precision guided missiles and UAVs. I say fark it, let's just go back to turning shiat into parking lots if we're not going to get any credit for trying to minimize casualties.

Also, don't like shiat getting blown up by UAVs in your country? How about you get rid of the terrorists? It's an amazingly simple solution. You do it, or we do it for you. Fark Yemen.

We've been doing this for years. It's sneaky and underhanded, but involves loss of fewer of our personnel, and more dead persons of interest. If terrorists want to face a trial before they get executed, they'll have to join a formal state and declare war.

Farking Canuck:imgod2u: Being able to target and kill someone for alleged crimes (or even intention of a crime) without trial or jury isn't Judge Dreddy? I realize it's not on Americans but is it really that much of a stretch to say that doing it to civilians of other nations (whom we have not declared war on) is still very very wrong?

Are you suggesting that, in a more conventional war, the military needs to put every foot soldier of the enemy on trial and convict before launching an attack? Or do you possibly accept that the rules are different when you are at war.

What war? Have we declared war on Yemen? No? Then we're killing civilians. Soldiers would not be allowed in Yemen as that would be a violation of their sovereignty.

Traditionally, when you are at war, if you positively identify an enemy who has not surrendered, they are a legitimate target (we're talking broad strokes here - not detailed rules of engagement).

Or are you arguing that the US is not at war with the Taliban / Al Queda (sp?)??

Traditionally, in war, you have a sovereign organization with a power structure and a standing army who you can defeat and accept a surrender from. Al Qaeda is not that. And thus, the approach of "it's safe to kill anytime we feel" isn't exactly apt either.

There are several complications that make the rules different than a traditional war:1. The combatant is not centrally controlled; even if Al Qaeda's leaders surrendered and pinky promised never to attack the U.S. again, that doesn't mean other branches or individuals won't keep attacking. This isn't a foreign nation.2. The combatants are embedded in other sovereign nations for which we do not have the right -- and in many cases are not given the right -- to enter and exercise our police force in.3. The combatants are not of any one nationality or organization that can be defeated. Nor can they ever be truly defeated. At any time, anywhere -- including inside the U.S. -- some crazy nutjob can be pissed enough about the current state of the world to perform an act of terror. Treating this like a war where one side can surrender and it'd all be over is farcical on its face.

Terrorism is like crime; not like war. Dealing with it requires a global police force -- or coalition of police forces -- that deals with such crime. And such a system only works -- and is morally defensible -- if there is a trial and jury system.

So, it's a joint Yemini-US operation, authorized by the Yemini, that took out several terrorists without injury or loss of life to any of our people. And Republicans are STILL trying the "unprovoked act of terror" card.

And I'm laughing at all of you idiots who are so farking terrified that Obama is going to start shooting missiles all over America. It's both sad and hilarious how you've convinced yourselves that Obama is some kind of Angel of Death just waiting for the right opportunity to declare war on us (is this because of the traitor that was taken out a couple of years ago over in the Middle East? Get over it, people who publicly denounce their citizenship, flee the country and join the group they support in active violence against their former home country are no longer citizens). Obama relaxed gun laws across the board and you're still pissing yourselves over the idea that he's gonna suddenly swoop down and carry off your precious boomsticks. Bush spent ten years, an obscene amount of money, and thousands of American lives attacking innocent countries with absolutely nothing to show for it. Obama authorized the successful takedown of bin Laden, helped remove Ghadaffi, and got our troops out of Iraq, all with minimal injury and death to our people, and our foreign relations have strengthened. Apparently that's unacceptable to you people, for whatever reason only you and God know.

You proved you were unhinged and psychotic the previous four years. Stop yourselves before you slip into complete insanity.

aspAddict:Biological Ali: Nobody called Bush a "terrorist" for going after al-Qaeda. This is something that actually never happened. There's no way you could be remembering something like this happening - unless, perhaps, you're misremembering things that people said about Iraq.

Bush is openly criticized for the war efforts.Obama is hailed as a savior for his.

The difference? Obama is giving out shiny stuff to the populace, so yay?

OK,Bush is criticised for his war in Iraq because Iraq was not involved in 9-11.There has been no proven link between Iraq and Al-Qaida.Obama, on the other hand, is attacking Al-Qaida, wherever they may be.

Incidentally, those calling Bush a terrorist are just as wrong as those calling Obama a terrorist.It is not terrorism when governments do it, it is war.Terrorism is war fought by NGOs and private citizens.It is legally an odd area.Are terrorists enemy combatants or criminals?The Geneva Conventions and the Hague Conventions apply only to wars between nations.Their creators did not envision the modern situation.

The worst Bush did was declare war without a legitimate Cassus Belli.Oh, and make us look like idiots in front of all the other nations.But since stupidity is not a crime, he was never impeached.

Yeah, I remember how people called Bush a "terrorist" for going after al-Qaeda. Wait, no I don't. Because that never happened.

You must have been in a coma during Bush's presidency.

neenerist:An anti-war blog cites a Chinese source citing a local security official in Sanaa who reports three terrosists "were confirmed killed Wednesday night in a Yemeni-U.S. joint airstrike operation which targeted the militants' vehicle......The United States has escalated its drone strikes since Yemeni President Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi took office in February, as part of the anti-terror cooperation to help crush the resurgent militants who had taken advantage of Yemen's political upheaval last year."

Ben Ghazi!

Well, since it was authorized by the Yeman government, it can't be classified as a terrorist act. Had he done it without their authorization it would have been considered an act of war - like what we've been doing in Pakistan, but fark Pakistan.

This is a disturbing trend no matter how you think of it. I agree that drones are practical and that they often get legitimate targets that otherwise would have eluded capture but the idea of zero checks and balances kinda makes this Judge Dreddy.

thunderbird8804:This is the same antiwar.com that claimed both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda were products of American foreign policy, that they're the product of poverty and injustice instead of the cause of it, claimed that attempts by Al-Qaeda to destroy Algerian society were not that but were instead an insurgency, that the murder of Sérgio de Mello by Al-Qaeda was an act of justice (for helping to liberate East Timor from Indonesia), they count themselves among the friends of Hamas, and on and on. These people are very open terrorist sympathizers, and though the name of their website might lead you to think that they are anti-war pacifists, that's just another lie that makes up the entirety of their reputation because they are in fact pro jihad.

Its the same antiwar.com that predicted iraq would be a disaster. I don't know about the other things. I rarely read it now. I gave them money a couple of times. I think they do a good job. They first brought AIPAC to my attention. We should value them over "respected" media that just regurgitate government handouts.

Sticky Hands:The ability of the other to strike back is part of it, however there is also the worry that the killing becomes too sanitized and "too easy". There are more than a few arguments that the shift to an all volunteer military made the USA more likely to adventuring all over the world. That fact that the troops sign up seems to make people case that much less, and since our press very rarely reports what is happening to the other side... well that's all the war we get. Killbots, well they just make this worse. yeah they hurt in that they eat up the treasury, at least the raw materials do, but for every one that goes down a replacement must be made, so it's nice job security, all at the minimal cost of some people no one here will ever know or see. Bonus? if there are no troops, there are also no embedded reporters, unless they are embedded on the other side, in which case... oops.

Cpl.D:The thing I like about drone strikes is less people in harm's way, less civilian casualties. As long as they do the targeting right and the local intel isn't on crack. I do think drone strikes are the best alternative. Until something better comes along, anyway. Or even better yet, people finally grow up and this shiat isn't necessary.

Look I'm all for killing the bad guys but at this point we're just creating new ones. Plus it's kind of hypocritical for people to yell about one side doing this and then be fine with another side doing it.

Cpl.D:skullkrusher: Cpl.D: skullkrusher: Cpl.D: Clearly the better solution would to have first enacted a blockade, then plant chemical weapons evidence, put together a coalition of the willing, then invade and spent ten years there, killing thousands of civilians and hundreds of our troops. Those defense contractor owners aren't going to put together next year's megayacht with only dreams and puppy dog farts.

yeah, the good people at Antiwar.com were real fond of Bush. You sure told them.

I was channeling bush, instead of just an alternative? Uh, sure. Go with that. Have fun.

*handwaving to avoid asking yourself the hard questions!*

Sure I was. We've got an enemy we've got to deal with on foreign soil. We get them with a drone strike. Drone strike isn't popular. What's the most common alternative we've exercised in this situation? I'm way sure it wasn't giving them five dollar gift cards to Hot Topic.

Have you considered not bombing them as an option? That drone strikes have undoubtly killed civilians, and that creates even more Anti-Americanism that breeds terrorism?

Or is it because we have to bomb them, because we have "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here?" I remember Fark hating the last guy who tried that.

Again, I'm still waiting for a real liberal to show up on Fark. That, or for someone to finally admit that Obama is a practical president, and will never be the idealistic liberal people like to pretend he is.

Vectron: A U.S. drone strike targeted a group of "al-Qaida militants" on the outskirts of the Yemeni capital Sanaa on Wednesday night, killing at least three "terrorists", government officials said.

And we know they were terrorists because the goverment told us so.You people are pathetic.

So vote republican? Not sure what you are trying to say here - plenty of people who voted for Obama don't agree with all of his foreign policy decisions or his stance on things like domestic wiretapping and Guantanamo Bay. The problem is, the republican camp looks a hell of a lot worse.

That's why i didn't vote.

Well I can't fault you for that if you don't like any of the options, although I would recommend checking out some of the minority parties - there has to be someone there with a platform that is at least close to what you believe. And it would help get a third party on the ticket and in the debates and maybe break us out of this extremist deadlock.

Although I'm no fan of Obama, I applaud his use of our military technology to take these people out. I have to think that implanting the thought into terrorists around the world that they could be bombed at their exact location at any given time with no warning whatsoever has to be effective at some level.

Cpl.D:Clearly the better solution would to have first enacted a blockade, then plant chemical weapons evidence, put together a coalition of the willing, then invade and spent ten years there, killing thousands of civilians and hundreds of our troops. Those defense contractor owners aren't going to put together next year's megayacht with only dreams and puppy dog farts.

yeah, the good people at Antiwar.com were real fond of Bush. You sure told them.

Marine1:naturalbornposer: Terrorist is a buzz word. Our government uses far more terror tactics at home and abroad than any "evil" group of angry foreigners. 9/11 didn't "terrorize" us anywhere near as much as an 11 year war in Afghanistan does to those people.

Vectron: A U.S. drone strike targeted a group of "al-Qaida militants" on the outskirts of the Yemeni capital Sanaa on Wednesday night, killing at least three "terrorists", government officials said.

And we know they were terrorists because the goverment told us so.You people are pathetic.

So vote republican? Not sure what you are trying to say here - plenty of people who voted for Obama don't agree with all of his foreign policy decisions or his stance on things like domestic wiretapping and Guantanamo Bay. The problem is, the republican camp looks a hell of a lot worse.

That's why i didn't voteam part of the problem.

A write-in is better than a no-show. and to be honest a democrat is better than a write-in, but only because of the current political climate.

Baumli:Vectron: A U.S. drone strike targeted a group of "al-Qaida militants" on the outskirts of the Yemeni capital Sanaa on Wednesday night, killing at least three "terrorists", government officials said.

And we know they were terrorists because the goverment told us so.You people are pathetic.

Because you would know more about what terrorist looks like than a government that spends ~700 billion $ on military espionage and operation annually, right? Having faith in your government used to be called patriotism, but I guess it's a new concept to some people./nice tinfoil hat sir/Obama 2012

Patriotism?Look, AIPAC runs congress and has a great deal of influence in foreign policy decisions. That organization wants to make sure that American actions benefit Israel. Then you have the military industry. Do you think those people want to see an end to wars? You are putting a lot of faith in little people when huge interests are at work.

We keep getting back to who sets the definition of people that pose a risk to America. I don't think those people over there pose a risk to me. And if they do, they would be a lot less likely to if American troops weren't over there.

Also the US has enough military power to act however it wants around the world. If there is blowback though someday don't be surprised.

Fallout Boy:Again, I'm still waiting for a real liberal to show up on Fark. That, or for someone to finally admit that Obama is a practical president, and will never be the idealistic liberal people like to pretend he is.

I consider myself a liberal. I voted for Obama. I admit that Obama is a practical president, and will never be the idealistic liberal people like to pretend he is. And I'm glad to have made your day.

Keizer_Ghidorah:So, it's a joint Yemini-US operation, authorized by the Yemini, that took out several terrorists without injury or loss of life to any of our people. And Republicans are STILL trying the "unprovoked act of terror" card.

And I'm laughing at all of you idiots who are so farking terrified that Obama is going to start shooting missiles all over America. It's both sad and hilarious how you've convinced yourselves that Obama is some kind of Angel of Death just waiting for the right opportunity to declare war on us (is this because of the traitor that was taken out a couple of years ago over in the Middle East? Get over it, people who publicly denounce their citizenship, flee the country and join the group they support in active violence against their former home country are no longer citizens). Obama relaxed gun laws across the board and you're still pissing yourselves over the idea that he's gonna suddenly swoop down and carry off your precious boomsticks. Bush spent ten years, an obscene amount of money, and thousands of American lives attacking innocent countries with absolutely nothing to show for it. Obama authorized the successful takedown of bin Laden, helped remove Ghadaffi, and got our troops out of Iraq, all with minimal injury and death to our people, and our foreign relations have strengthened. Apparently that's unacceptable to you people, for whatever reason only you and God know.

You proved you were unhinged and psychotic the previous four years. Stop yourselves before you slip into complete insanity.

imgod2u:cleek: imgod2u: but the idea of zero checks and balances kinda makes this Judge Dreddy.

wait, did Obama win the power to dissolve Congress and SCOTUS Tuesday night?no?then WTF are you talking about?

Being able to target and kill someone for alleged crimes (or even intention of a crime) without trial or jury isn't Judge Dreddy? I realize it's not on Americans but is it really that much of a stretch to say that doing it to civilians of other nations (whom we have not declared war on) is still very very wrong?

That's on the same level as "if we allow gays to marry, then we're gonna have people marrying turtles".

And you people do know we have intelligence over there? Spy drones? Informants? We're not shooting willy-nilly at random people because they look terroristy. We also have the permission and assistance of the Yemeni.

Cpl.D:Keizer_Ghidorah: Cpl.D: The Dog Ate My Homework: I've never really understood the supposed "outrage" over the use of drones. The only difference between a drone and a regular aircraft is that the pilot for one is thousands of miles away sitting in an office while the pilot for the other is actually in the aircraft. Does it hurt less if you get blown up by a drone? Because I don't see the difference.

I've got a wingnut relative who's completely certain that the use of drones is somehow a war crime, and that within days 0bummer's going to go to trial for war crimes. I wish I were kidding. She's already saved up money for an expensive caterer for the party she intends to throw.

According to some, usually the older people, if you're not risking your life or the lives of others to fight, then it's evil and horrible and wrong and Satanic and blah blah. Apparently the idea of "minimize your own losses" is a foreign concept to these people.

Usually the same people who think there's some kind of honor in meeting your foe on open ground and killing them. The same knuckleheads who romanticize war and don't realize how completely freaking ugly it is.

Exactly. War isn't glamorous or awesome, it's a messy, terrible business that many prefer not to happen, and if it does to do it as quickly and cleanly as possible. If using remote-control drones keeps our people safe, by all means send an armada of the things up. Robot tanks? Make sure you give them the ability to say "EX-TER-MIN-ATE!" every time they fire. As long as our men and women are safe, who cares about the fact that drones and robots are doing the dirty work?

OK, look, this bugs me some. If we're gonna go all Ender's Game on the terrorists, I think there should be a law stating that within 48 hours after the strike, ALL information used to make the call gets posted on a public website. That way we can see, at least in hindsight, if it was a legitimate call. If we start seeing bullshiat info used to legitimate blowing people up, it makes legislation banning it that much easier.

But all things considered, I guess I prefer drone strikes to US servicepeople being put in crosshairs. Barely.

Vectron:JDAT: Although I'm no fan of Obama, I applaud his use of our military technology to take these people out. I have to think that implanting the thought into terrorists around the world that they could be bombed at their exact location at any given time with no warning whatsoever has to be effective at some level.

I can't wait until the president unleashes this technology on DomesticTerrorists. The thought that tax cheats, speeders, preppers, gun hoarders will know they could be bombed at their exact location at any given time with no warning whatsoever has to be effective at some level.

You equate tax cheats, speeders, preppers and gun hoarders with acts of Terror???

I'm 100% sure that the people killed were terrorists, because a Democrat ordered it. If a Republican ordered it, I would be outraged about military operations without a declaration of war, civilian casualties, the millions of dollars spent, increased outrage by people in the Middle East, involvement in a long-running civil war that's none of our goddamn business, and imperialism in general. Thank goodness none of those things are a problem, because a Democrat is president.

A military strike is not a punishment. Casualties of such a strike have not been deemed "guilty" by anyone for any particular crime. I'm not sure how notions like that to the contrary have come about, but the sooner they die off, the better.

that's sort of the point. If we're gonna treat terrorism like a law enforcement issue, executing people without trial probably isn't how it should be done in the US.

When German bases were bombed during WWII, were all the people killed "executed without trial"?

This "executing without trial" notion makes no sense, and people really need to stop using that phrase in this context. These drone strikes aren't carried out as punishments for specific crimes that the targets are being accused of - they're being carried out to weaken an organization that the US is at war with.

A military strike is not a punishment. Casualties of such a strike have not been deemed "guilty" by anyone for any particular crime. I'm not sure how notions like that to the contrary have come about, but the sooner they die off, the better.

that's sort of the point. If we're gonna treat terrorism like a law enforcement issue, executing people without trial probably isn't how it should be done in the US.

When German bases were bombed during WWII, were all the people killed "executed without trial"?

This "executing without trial" notion makes no sense, and people really need to stop using that phrase in this context. These drone strikes aren't carried out as punishments for specific crimes that the targets are being accused of - they're being carried out to weaken an organization that the US is at war with.

I've never really understood the supposed "outrage" over the use of drones. The only difference between a drone and a regular aircraft is that the pilot for one is thousands of miles away sitting in an office while the pilot for the other is actually in the aircraft. Does it hurt less if you get blown up by a drone? Because I don't see the difference.

imgod2u:This is a disturbing trend no matter how you think of it. I agree that drones are practical and that they often get legitimate targets that otherwise would have eluded capture but the idea of zero checks and balances kinda makes this Judge Dreddy.

Less accountability and more secrecy makes for a successful war.

In this respect, Obama has proven far more capable than Bush, because he can keep up the attacks while taking few losses.Since reporters get pulitzers for covering soldiers rather than robots, the process can continue with minimal criticism.

/I think most Americans agree with winning so long as they don't know how the hamburger is made.

Biological Ali:Nobody called Bush a "terrorist" for going after al-Qaeda. This is something that actually never happened. There's no way you could be remembering something like this happening - unless, perhaps, you're misremembering things that people said about Iraq.

Bush is openly criticized for the war efforts.Obama is hailed as a savior for his.

The difference? Obama is giving out shiny stuff to the populace, so yay?

naturalbornposer:Terrorist is a buzz word. Our government uses far more terror tactics at home and abroad than any "evil" group of angry foreigners. 9/11 didn't "terrorize" us anywhere near as much as an 11 year war in Afghanistan does to those people.

Biological Ali:Smeggy Smurf: Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence.

I know you're just joking around there, but there do seem to be quite a few people ignorant (willfully or otherwise) of the fact that when "libs were biatching about Bush's war", it wasn't the war against al-Qaeda that they were referring to.

well, they were biatching about how that war was prosecuted. We got rid of torture, that's a good thing. We even made a pretty show of pretending we wanted to try major terror suspects in civilian courts in downtown Manhattan. Gitmo is still open, we've thrown away that silly "terrorism is a law enforcement issue for civilian courts to handle like embezzlement or jaywalking" idea and kept with our policy of guilty until proven posthumously innocent. Little has changed except who is cheerleading for what now

JDAT:Although I'm no fan of Obama, I applaud his use of our military technology to take these people out. I have to think that implanting the thought into terrorists around the world that they could be bombed at their exact location at any given time with no warning whatsoever has to be effective at some level.

I can't wait until the president unleashes this technology on DomesticTerrorists. The thought that tax cheats, speeders, preppers, gun hoarders will know they could be bombed at their exact location at any given time with no warning whatsoever has to be effective at some level.

Smeggy Smurf:Funny how all these libs were biatching about Bush's war but applaud Fartbongo's war. Either be a chickenshiat or a bloodthirsty bastard. Quit farking around with the fence.

I know you're just joking around there, but there do seem to be quite a few people ignorant (willfully or otherwise) of the fact that when "libs were biatching about Bush's war", it wasn't the war against al-Qaeda that they were referring to.